but isnt a complementary infinitive a formation like 'ESSE DESEDERAT'in any case which will automatically preclude the chance of it beingan objective infinitive? DESIDERAT however is on the list of verbs which form objective infinitive sentences

is it the PEUR CLARUS vs the PEUR AMICUM CLARUMthat makes the difference?

is it the 'same' time (hence context) that renders them uninterchangable?in different contexts however either could be an objective or complementary infinitive even though some of the nouns and adjectives are different?

or does context have nothing to do with it, that in fact they are interchangableat any time?

or is it because the other additional words in the sentence change its sentence typefrom complementary to objective?

I think it's more important to understand what's going here than to worry too much about terminology.Puer clarus esse desideratandPuer amicum clarum esse desideratThe main difference between the two sentences is that in the first one, the subject of both verbs is the same (namely, the boy). In the second, esse refers to a different person than the main verb (the boy wants someone else to be famous). If you want to take the sentences apart, you can rewrite the infinitive phrases as independent sentences:Puer clarus estAmicus clarus estThe construction of these two sentences is exactly the same; their relationship to Puer desiderat is not. When you have a change of subject in an embedded clause, Latin requires you to mark this (here, by putting "amicus" in the accusative) so the listener doesn't get confused.("Puer amicus clarus esse desiderat" would mean "the boy wants to be a famous friend")

spiphany wrote:I think it's more important to understand what's going here than to worry too much about terminology.Puer clarus esse desideratandPuer amicum clarum esse desideratThe main difference between the two sentences is that in the first one, the subject of both verbs is the same (namely, the boy). In the second, esse refers to a different person than the main verb (the boy wants someone else to be famous). If you want to take the sentences apart, you can rewrite the infinitive phrases as independent sentences:Puer clarus estAmicus clarus estThe construction of these two sentences is exactly the same; their relationship to Puer desiderat is not. When you have a change of subject in an embedded clause, Latin requires you to mark this (here, by putting "amicus" in the accusative) so the listener doesn't get confused.("Puer amicus clarus esse desiderat" would mean "the boy wants to be a famous friend")

can this be simply stated as in sentence #1

PUER CLARUS ESSE DESIDERAT

that the most important verb is DESIDERAT

while in sentence #2

PUER AMICUM CLARUM ESSE DESIDERAT

the most important verb is ESSE

can the stress placed upon one verb in the sentence changethe classification of the sentence from complementary to objective

or is only this true: the same identical verb in both sentences is alwaysconsidered the most important verb in that sentence and has nothingto do with whether it is complementary or objective?

blutoonwithcarrotandnail wrote:or is only this true: the same identical verb in both sentences is always considered the most important verb in that sentence

It is not true. Both verbs in both these sentences are equally important or significant.Falsum est. Alterum verbum alterae sententiae aequè magnum vel significans est.

blutoonwithcarrotandnail wrote:and has nothing to do with whether it is complementary or objective?

As you say, the relative significance of these verbs has nothing to do with whether they are complementary or objectiveUt dicis, significantia horum verborum relativa an sit complementarium an objectivum non spectat.

Now, I know that different sources have different ideas for what to name terms, so I will try to explain what I see the difference as.

A Complementary Infinitive merely completes the meaning of a verb. So in the sentence "Puer clarus esse desiderat" it is very clear that "desires to be" is the full idea of the verb. So it is equally clear that this is an example of complimentary infinitive.

An Objective infinitive is an infinitive that is one that can be seen as the object of a verb, so in the sentences "the boy desires a friend" and "the boy desires to become", "friend" and "become" are filling the same role as object of the verb "want". So many times an infinitive can be parsed as both objective and complementary. In fact, the complementary infinitive is a subset of objective infinitive uses.

Now lets look at the second sentence: Puer amicum clarum esse desiderat. The boy wants his friend to become famous. in this case it is the whole phrase "his friend to become famous" that is the object of the sentence. However, "esse" still completes the idea of the main verb; "he wants his friend" would be an incomplete idea. The problem I see with this second sentence is that the structure is more different in Latin than it appears in English. In Latin, I would really prefer this as an Sentence with an indirect statement: "The boy desires that his friend becomes famous". In this case it becomes quite apparent that the infinitive is the main verb in the Indirect Statement.

So, to summarize so far:1) Complementary Infinitives are a type of objective infinitive use, and so are often called "compl. obj. infinitives".2) When the accusative direct object of the main verb also seems to be the subject of an infinitive verb, you should recognize the possibility for Indirect Statement.3) (though as of yet unexplained) Not all objective Infinitives are complementary. Some verbs are known for taking two accusative direct objects "I teach the boys math", for example has "boys" and "math" are in the accusative case. Similarly common you might see "I teach the boys to swim". "To swim" is just filling in the place of the second accusative in the double accusative structure, and is an objective infinitive. When we look so see if it is complementary though, "I teach the boys" is a perfectly fine sentence, and does not require a verb to complete the main meaning.